July 13, 2009

8:22 Central Time: I'm setting up the post. The hearings start at the top of the hour. You can watch on-line at C-SPAN. I'll be watching, with a DVR assist to get quotes right, and I'll also be doing some radio commentary, at the breaks, on Minnesota Public Radio.

8:48: After reading some of the comments here, I want to say that, of course, I think that Sotomayor will be confirmed. So that won't be the focus of my commentary. There are plenty of genuinely relevant, important things to observe. You'll see!

9:02: The Senators all get to make — which means read — 10 minute statements. Patrick Leahy, is now reading Sotomayor's biography to us. Leahy has a raspy, annoying voice, and he stumbles over words, saying, for example, "pie partisan."

9:11: Leahy acts like it's a special problem that Sotomayor was attacked before Obama picked her. But that's the very best time to make the argument about possible nominees. It might influence the selection. Once the selection is made, it is extremely difficult to defeat it.

9:14: Senator Sessions stresses impartiality and adherence to the law. "Our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe, an objective truth... Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning.... In this world, a judge is free to push his or her political or social agenda." "An ordered universe" comes close to grounding law in religion, but doesn't quite go there. Atheists can believe in "objective truth" too. Sessions is making a nice and clear statement of what really should be the GOP theme in these hearings. Law is not ideology or politics, and relativism undermines the rule of law.

9:36: Orrin Hatch reminds us of what Obama, as a Senator, said against Janice Rogers Brown. Turnabout is fair play. [Here's the text of Senator Obama's anti-Brown speech.]

10:00: Russ Feingold wants us to be wary of the term "judicial activism." It really is used to say, essentially, a decision I don't like.

10:22: Chuck Schumer is carrying a lot of weight, making the argument that the Republicans obviously are planning to demand that Sotomayor make for herself. He's laying out details that show Sotomayor has been impartial, that the outcomes in her cases do not reveal favoritism to certain times of litigants and antipathy toward others. She really has been an umpire, unlike Chief Justice Roberts who said he was an umpire, but check out the outcomes in his cases.

10:26: Lindsey Graham says that no Republican President would have picked her. Miguel Estrada would be the choice if the idea were to pick the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. But this isn't about ethnicity. It's about liberal and conservative, he says. He tells her outright, she'll be confirmed. That is, "unless you have a complete meltdown" — which she won't.

12:11: They're on lunch break now. I did 10 minutes of analysis of Minnesota Public Radio. And there were a few more Senators doing their opening speeches that I haven't said anything about. It's getting a little repetitive. Kind of a drag to have to go after so many others, but nothing is forcing the Senators to have this terribly clunky approach to opening the hearings. On the up side, it will be interesting to hear a little speech from Senator Al Franken. My guess is that — in an effort to establish his senatorial gravitas — he will be terribly boring.

1:31: A heckler! Hey, Franken is a comedian! He should have some snappy comebacks!

1:33: "Judge Soh-toh-my-AIR."

1:34: Franken keeps talking about himself. I just took the oath of office... I may not be a lawyer... blah blah blah.

1:35: Man, Franken has quickly adapted to the Senate. He's doing pompous and leaden as if he'd been lumbering along senatorially for decades.

1:41: Chuck Schumer is now sitting at the table next to Sotomayor. He's being the Senator from New York, introducing the nominee from New York.

2:06: Sotomayor stood to take the oath, saying "I. do." in a way that tracked the odd cadence used by Senator Leahy. in administering it. She then gave a plain and straightforward statement about her simple judicial philosophy: following the law as written. She presented empathy and her personal background something that might enhance her understanding of the facts. In the end, the only task is to say what the law is and apply the law to the facts. There's nothing for the conservatives to attack in that (unless they say they don't believe her, which isn't nice). She said what they say they wanted to hear. And this — not any complicated explanations about how empathy is a component of interpretation — is really the easiest and best way to appeal to Americans. Good job.

You are right. She is going to the bench. But if the Repubicans have any balls, they were make her look like the racist mediocrity she is and end any idea that Obama is somehow post racial. They can make the political cost for nominating her high. This woman has lower poll numbers than Myers did.

"In deference to the mythical up for grabs Hispanic vote the Pubbies will wimp-out."

Probably so. Of course what they don't realize is Mexicans as a general rule can't stand Puero Ricans and vice versa. If you really wanted to insult the woman, you would refer to her as a Mexican. Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be a more caucasian elite and far above Mexicans. Mexicans can't stand them. Cubans look on knowing for sure they are better than both of them.

We will get to see if she is a Wise judge by her answers. Hold fire until she speaks. No one offends hispanic voters by finding out some truth about Sonia Sotomayor. Only pre-judging her by easy ideological suspicions arouses the anger of the hispanic voters who remember being pre-judged by their appearing different in speech accent and hair color. The Spanish-American War was more than 100 years ago, and winning that War has consequences today, most of them good consequences.

I don't think she should be judged soley by her answers today. She should be judged by her record. And frankly her record stinks. The wise latina speech was downright offensive and racist. Her attempt to deny the Ricci plaintiffs relief at the Supreme Court through procedural maneuvers was equally offensive. She ought to have to answer for those actions.

Unlike President Obama, I generaly believe that the president has deference in his choices. So long as he does not choose Harriet Meirs for SCOTUS or makes Bill Ayers Secretary of [Re]Education, I generally will not make a big deal.

She is not Meirs nor is she Ayers. So I would in the end vote yes. But I agree that Sessions seems to have hit the right note.

"An ordered universe" comes close to grounding law in religion, but doesn't quite go there.

I'm glad Sessions didn't overdo it. It is a good way to bring up such controversial issues, like the fact that our founders actually did ground our values in a belief in God-given rights. I hope people end up thinking about such things as a result of these hearings.

I'll throw out a number -- Alito got 58 votes when there were 55 Republican senators, so I say a few more Republicans will cling to deference to the president than that -- Sotomayor gets confirmed with 65-68 votes.

1) It is a turnaround for the Democrats to talk about Sotomayor's judging experience:"more than any of the current Justices had when they were confirmed".

Obama clearly said - and was immediately parroted by hundreds of pundits and Democrats - that he wanted someone with more "real world experience". This was said because the Democrats knew they don't have the mental firepower dugout of a Scalia, Roberts, or Alito (and more often now Thomas, also) to pull from. Yet now - with Senator Leahy's pathetic opening statement - the Democrat talking points about "real world experience" vs. "count up all the years as a judge - go ahead, count!" has done a 180 degree turnaround.

2)The real meme/lie the Democrats want is to claim the term "activist judge". Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of activist judges - they want Justices who interpret the meaning of the law.

Democrats know they cannot win this argument on the merits - they lost it long ago with the "empathy" attempts and they do not have enough constituency that are suspicious of the courts to keep them in office. So, they disingenuously try to re-frame and redefine "Activist" to mean a Judge who changes "precedent" - previous decisions, whether the decisions are completely and utterly devoid of Constitutional reasoning or not.

Watch for this to become the constant - and completely dishonest - argument for the near future by Democrats during most judge hearings. If you can't win on the merits - fudge on the particulars.

3) Someone should get the man behind Sotomayor a better suit. This sympathy play will work against her more than help her.

objective based on what Ann? If there is no God, who are you to say that one set of values or morals is better than another?

First of all, I don't think the reference to "objective" just meant "objective moral values." But to answer your question, how about utilitarianism? Also, you seem to assume that God provides a solid foundation for "objective values," but I'm not so sure about that. If everything is relative to God's arbitrarily chosen values, that sounds more relativistic than an atheist utilitarian who makes moral judgments based on the observable consequences of actions.

Russ Feingold wants us to be wary of the term "judicial activism." It really is used to say, essentially, a decision I don't like.

BOOP! Wrong again Mr Feingold.

The Democrats are DESPERATE to take over the definiton of "Activist Judge" - they cannot win the arguments about activist vs, well actual judging - reading the Constitution and applying exactly what it says. In other, smaller) words - Judges should not get to put their "empathy" into play.

"Activist Judge" real definition: Judges who make decisions based on the outcome they want rather than what the law actually says. Can the Democrats win in redefining the term and misuse it's meaning, changing it's description to "Judges who don't follow "precedent" no matter how wrongly decided that precedent was decided?

But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says." That means both sides can accuse the other of deviating from what the law actually says based on their personal preference. And that means that "judicial activism" is shorthand for "decisions I disagree with."

it is a system. Of course what do you do when you can improve the lives of many people and help make the world a better place by sacrifing the lives of a few? We do that in wars all the time of course. But if you follow that logic to its end, you wind up saying things like "it is a good idea to kill the old and the weak if it allows everyone else to live better. The end result of utilitarianism is things like eugenics and slavery.

"Also, you seem to assume that God provides a solid foundation for "objective values," but I'm not so sure about that. If everything is relative to God's arbitrarily chosen values, that sounds more relativistic than an atheist utilitarian who makes moral judgments based on the observable consequences of actions."

If God is some kind of personafied old man in the sky like Zeus, then yes you have a point. If God is an ominipotent creator of the universe, then you point doesn't stand. If God is omnipotent, it stands to reason that he has access to knowledge and wisdom beyond our comprehension. And thus his laws and values are always going to be superior to the ones we dream up.

"But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says." That means both sides can accuse the other of deviating from what the law actually says based on their personal preference. And that means that "judicial activism" is shorthand for "decisions I disagree with."

I think that is playing far too fast and lose with the truth. There is a position known as "originalism" whereby the judge reads the plain meaning of the statute or usually the consitution read in light of the contemparary statements of the drafters and settles on one meaning of the document. This is in contrast to the idea of the Constitution being a "living document". If the constitution is read as a "living document" it is read not in the context of its drafters intent and plain meaning, it is read in context of current values. If current values say that the protection against search and seizure means that aborition is a gaurenteed right, even though the drafters of the Amendment contemplated no such thing, then that is what it means.

Judicial Activism does mean something. It means interpreting the construction of statutes and the Constitution to fit with what the judge considers contemperary societal values even if doing so requires a reading not contemplated by the drafters of the document.

But if you follow that logic to its end, you wind up saying things like "it is a good idea to kill the old and the weak if it allows everyone else to live better. The end result of utilitarianism is things like eugenics and slavery.

Well, I thought the question was whether an atheist can have objective moral beliefs, not whether they're correct. If the question is whether they're correct, then of course utilitarianism is open to criticism, but of course God-based moral beliefs are equally open to criticism.

I should add, John, that I think you raise an excellent reason why utilitarianism is incorrect. But I was just giving it as a convenient example of a moral belief system. I thought it was a useful example because people instantly understand what it means and it's simple to describe. My goal wasn't to write a treatise on ethics. In the real world, atheists -- like agnostics and theists -- usually have much more complex sets of moral beliefs.

Love Beauragard Jefford Sessions III. That's the kind of racist I can support. Go Bama! Poor things own racist past derailed him in becoming a judge but he gained vengeance by becoming a senator...from Alabama.

You know he has a sheet and hood and noose hanging in his closet.

He also is very unattractive and looks like he has a small cock. That's sad.

I misstated my point. You are correct in saying that Athiests can have objective systems. But what athiests cannot have is any claim to moral imperitive of their system over any other. Even ultilitarianism has its virtues. In the end, with no ultimate authority to appeal to, the Atheist is left defending his system with personal preference. I think Nitzsche had it exactly right. Once God is dead, all that is left is the human will. Why is one system better than another? Because I will it to be so. When athiests tell you how great they are because they are "good for the sole purpose of being good and not some eternal reward" they are just asserting their will like a good Nitchean superman.

But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says.

There are NO reasonable people today - on all sides of the issue - who believe that Roe v Wade is a "disagreement about what the law says". Just another example of certain judges trying to "solve" a problem rather than finding see "what the law actually says". They wrote entirely unwitten and unthought of things into the Constitution. Even Liberal Scholars agree that it was bad judging.

Those were "activist" judges, JAC. By this illustration alone your point is therefore destroyed.

Please do not allow yourself to become a regurgitator of Democrat talking points on this issue. you are far to much of a think for yourself kind of person to become another Democrat lapdog.

Loved his campaign for senate speaking about lesbian teachers in bathrooms in public schools in Oklahoma.

Also, especially delish that he was insisting Ensign to pay off the whore he was fucking...alledgedly. Although, Coburn won't speak about it because as a deacon and doctor is was confidential. Not sure what that has to do with his being a doctor or deacon but still absolutely eat it up. A true family values man and for that I am in total awe.

No person should have to listen to 20 some senators talk for 10 minutes each. It is so wrong.

This is like the senators academy awards though.

How come blue state senators sound smarter than red state senators? Is it just the red neck accent or is there more to it? Breeding, education, urban vs rural? The south really is horrible. I am sorry but what gay would live in the south. I know Hotlanta is supposed to be all that but is it really worth it fellow fags? Aren't you in like Cobb County as soon as you leave Hotlanta. I am sorry but so not fabulous.

"The south really is horrible. I am sorry but what gay would live in the south"

Just enough to support big gay communities in just about every major city there from Houston to Oklahoma City to Nashville to Savanah. And of course places like Bensenhurst and South Boston are so welcoming to gays. Greasers with baseball bats just love gays as long as said greasers are from the enlightened Northeast.

Most the Irish trash have moved out and the "DINCS" and fags have moved it. Lofts for days, fabulous cafes, ferns everyhwere. You know what those fags do to a neighborhood. The price of real estate has gotten ridiculous and as a result the riff raff have had to move out.

Can gays marry in any southern state? Oh yea, no, but they have all voted for constituional amendments, thank the lord our savior.

"Can gays marry in any southern state? Oh yea, no, but they have all voted for constituional amendments, thank the lord our savior."

The State of California overwelmingly voted down gay marriage last November. I guess it is gross to. As a matter of fact, I think an anti-gay marriage proposal passed there to. I don't know how those fags live in those lofts in South Boston do you?

Considering gays reaction to the vote in California, I don't know how anyone could have a problem with them. I mean realy, you try to burn down a couple of Morman temples and people start to hold it against you or something. You constantly spew about how most of the country are evil rednecks and how you hate them all and all of the sudden no one likes you. I mean the nerve of people not to like someone as enlightened and tolerant as you.

Titus...From your statement,one would assume that Atlanta is located way up North. FYI the Mayor of Atlanta's office is now won not by panderingto the Black vote, but is won by drawing the intown gay vote that is conservative on the issue of working for ones financial rewards instead recieving those rewards for bloc voting. So far so good.

These are for the most part show hearings, with more conflict at a Politburo hearing.

The main thing opponents should do is educate as many people as possible about her history, highlighting the fact that for six years, she was a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that gave an award to someone who'd proposed genocide years earlier.

No, really: genocide.

What opponents need to do is send emails to all their friends with that link and others. Urge your friends to contact as many national politicians as possible stating their opposition. And, urge them to pass the message along to others.

"The reason homosexuals may raise the price of real estate is because often they are dual income without the cost of kids."

Since they don't have kids, they don't have to worry about bad schools. And they can thus be the first to move into bad areas. Gays are usually the tip of the gentrifying spear. Of course that gentrifrication leads to hoards of rich yuppies running the property values up and forcing out the people who live in the neighborhood. If I were a working class latino or black, I am not sure I would be very happy to see the first white gay couple move into my neighborhood. It means that I am probably going to have to move along in a few years for the rich white yuppies who will follow.

From BO's anti-Janice Rogers Brown speech:'Justice Brown went so far as to suggest that the landmark civil rights law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, could be unconstitutional under the first amendment.'

In Titus' tiny brain being from Alabama ipso facto confers racist status on Sessions. And there are millions of unprejudiced fudgepackers out there. What if Sessions were a fudgepacker? What a quandary that would be for Titus.

Why aren't blacks and hispanics capable of gentrifying their own neighborhoods? And don't give me the horse turds that it's a matter of money. Racism? Nope, that don't work neither. Then what is it? Tick, tick, tick, ti.....

I just posted easy steps you can take to oppose her. Please evaluate what you do for effectiveness, and consider doing things that are actually effective. For instance, the comment about what Schumer said is good, but it would be better as a blog post showing how he's wrong.

They don't care how she gets in as long as she does. That's all that matters and for Franken, FRANKEN!!! unbelievable this human clusterfuck can have any say so at all thinks she's the most qualified candidate in 100 years? Really, you ignorant leftist stooge? You wouldn't a think about the law if it crawled up your ass and tickled your throat. Unbelievable just watching my country go to shit with people like this.

Titus is the funniest, most God-like, informed, humorous and gifted commenter here.

That he is as full of hate as he is of shit just adds to the urbanity and wit. Afterall, if a fag, to use his own description of himself, cannot hate those not like himself, have not the terrorists (who he really likes to do) won?

The reason I said Sessions was a racist is because he was nominated for some judge thing and during his confirmation hearings it came out he liked to use the n word and tell n jokes. Nothing new there. Oh and because he is from Alabama, natch.

As far as gays and the gentrifying of hoods. Let me speak to that. I have been a gay gentrifying pioneer. What does happen though is the gays clean the hoods up, plant some ferns, open a few coffee shops, some fab restaurants, a yoga studio, gym, cute little stores and before you know it Bif and Buffy with Bif Jr. are rolling around the streets. Next come the straight DINKS and before you know it the mos are forced to leave the hood. And finally come the empty nesters who have the money and want the amenties of living in a city. A single mo can afford a 700,000k-1,000,000 condo but when they go overr 1 mill its time to look for the new hot destination.

And finally NKVD has licked my dirty ass after I took a really juicy shit. He licked it clean. When he came up from his dindin his mouth looked like Clarabel The Clown. NKVD likes to lick dirty fag ass on the downlow, natch. NKVD still has a thing for me. Waiting with baited (shit) breath for my every word. I told you one ass licking is all you get. Now enough, you are embrASSing yourself you little shit eater.

There is a major cruise area on the beach in South Boston called Carson Beach. On any night it is packed with hot Irish Trash. Major downlow spot. Check it out. Sometimes it is difficult to even get into or out of the parking lot because of the traffic backups. It is that busy.

I don't like terrorists either. For some reason straighties think gays have "empathy" for terrorists.

I don't. I despise them.

Now Muzzies on the downlow, that is another story. Very hot.

I am going to NYC tomorrow to pick up my last belongings and I am not even sad.

I just had Kohlrabi Batons as the fabulous cafe next to my fabulous loft. I think I have mentioned this before but I could never live anywhere that wasn't walking distance from Kohlrabi Batons.

But back to my question. Why are blue states the most fabulous and have the most fabulous cities. Cities that people travel all around the world to visit: NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, LA.

You never hear about people going on a vacation in Mississippi or Alabama or Tennessee and that is just sad.

And all the fabulous southern people leave their states so there is no more fabulousness. I say lets bring back fabulous to the South. What do southern fags do? Hide, I would imagine.

And no Beauragard Jefford Sessions III is not a fudgepacker. I can see where the red neck southern accent can sometimes be confused with the gay voice but he is definitely not a fudgie. We gays can smell it in others, right NKVD?

And finally, fellow republicans, I just have to say what a contribution I make here. It is really such an impact. It is heartfelt, intelligent, thought provoking, earnest, compelling, fascinating and so important.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law. There is a third element in her jurisprudence, which is find a way to provide outcomes for groups she considers more deserving, i.e. those not composed of white males.

If you believe all law is merely a veil covering power relationships, this is nothing special.

This is considered normal and OK at law schools. Amongst normal people, not so much.

Sotomayor is a product of a world most ordinary Americans do not know exists, which is motivated by values they do not share, but which increasingly controls their lives.

I don't like terrorists either. For some reason straighties think gays have "empathy" for terrorists.

You don't like terrorists you can't fuck. Everyone here knows you'd plow a Hajji while getting to scream "JIHAD!!! balalalalala!!!" just so you can say you did it. Since the straighties contributed to you miserable and god-awful existence let me be the first to say that if you keeled over today, the world would be a better place for it, you chub-producing twink wannabe.

Lexington Green said..."She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law."

Her comment relates to how a judge could or would better understand an aspect of life they themselves may have experienced.

Oh, and you left this part out:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

*Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.( CHARLIE SAVAGE / Published: May 14, 2009)

Oh sure, Gene. We notice a common thread with you all time. The common thread that you like to pluck horseshit out of your ass whenever it suits you to lie. Afterall, you are a liar and liars like you lie all time.

Your finality as a pathetic joke has come to fruition once and for all. You post a series of percentages based on what? Which congressional laws are you even talking about? And are you confusing activism with actual judgments against certain laws that the justices found to be unconstitutional? Do you even know what the fuck you are saying you half-wit?

Lexington Green said..."She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law."

Her comment relates to how a judge could or would better understand an aspect of life they themselves may have experienced.

Oh, and you left this part out:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

*Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case. ( CHARLIE SAVAGE / Published: May 14, 2009)

Oh, Gene, Gene, Gene. When will you learn that life experience as a function of being a wise latina federal judge is no substitute for legal precedence. You don't even know what aspect of life she was talking about. Let's say you are a judge Gene and you have to make a decision, do you use your life experience, high and wise empathic powers to formulate a proper judicial decision based on your feelings or do you go back and look at precedent and formulate a rational decision based on past relative cases? Oh hey, Gene, did you say hi to your mom for me?

I was home at lunch and stayed to hear Sonia's remarks. I was pleased with her sincerety and her intelligence to say what she was there to say and then shut up. She was a trial lawyer once. That's the only place one learns those skills in combination. If she could only teach those two skills to Al Franken, then we would have something to really brag on this Bush-I appointee for. My expectation was confirmed that she is a good Justice being used by Obama's boys to draw anti-hispanic war dances out of simple minded conservatives who think they are heroicly and rudely fighting judicial tyranny. Word to the wise...Sonia on the Court is not going to lead to a tyranny, but a second Obama term and who he can appoint to the Court then will.

Obama, from the link from Hatch's speech speaking of why he rejected black female Janice Rogers Brown, as a political activist:

Now, the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent. Some of us who attended law school or are in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff. The test of whether a judge is qualified to be a judge is not their intelligence. It is their judgment.

The test of a qualified judicial nominee is also not whether that person has their own political views. Every jurist surely does. The test is whether he or she can effectively subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and the merits alone. That is what keeps our judiciary independent in America. That is what our Founders intended.

Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge. It is a pretty easy observation to make when you look at her judicial decisions.

Now we can have a cohort that screams hypocrisy! hypocrisy!hypocrisy! hypocrisy! - Case closed!

But in fact it isn't. Both sides know political bias is built-in to whoever is on the bench and injects their bias into "rule of law". Reagan blew it when he selected a moderate who saw herself as a legislator 1st, fitting the law to justify her political preferences.

Bush I simply just blew it when he selected a liberal as his Scotus pick.Souter was is 2nd-biggest mistake, next to having George W.(Read my lips a distant 3rd).

So what Obama said about Janice Brown was utterly expected, just as Republican claims she was merely an impartial strict constructionist - and have no effect on Sotomayor's confirmation. But, Obama's vote on "well-qualified, superbly well-qualified" Roberts and Alito DOES provide cover to Republicans who declare they are in total love with Sotomayor and all her biography and 95% of what whe is...but that last 5% FORCES them to vote against her...as the Black Messiah did in other votes he cast as Senator.

Add that much blame goes to Bush II, Hatch and Frist for not being willing to fully go to battle for Miguel Estrada...but string things along until he got sick of being played with. Republicans could have had a hispanic star of their own in position to nominate...but no, they let that be sabotaged by Democrats even while they controlled both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.

PARASITIC SPECIES INFESTATION alien robot telescope spaceship: audiobook first few tracks are good, PALE BLUE DOT as we transition to a knowledge based global society

as computing power increases exponentially and ubiquitous web enabled sensors allow for immersion in context relevant buddhist or ethics perspective, national broadband plan...

www.dharmaprinting.com augmented reality sociology subject index and table of contents Chinese military intelligence genius clones life energy word abacus sustainability transmission measurement context mapping twitter.com/globalcide is me Google for EXTINCTCULTURE please let me know what you think about this topic www.computer.org/pervasive (FOLDING@HOME and BIONIC software's, engineering 450 million new species to make deserts habitable or telepathic ecosystem maintenance) autodesk inventor prototyping software for genetics use the audio book list on audibles.com to build course of life coaching training young orphan people to be CIA certified ethical hackers download free at nowtorrents.com because if the current post world war 2 education system was meant to produce factory workers (not critical thinking curriculum video from best teacher nationally then teachers answer questions and do research while the kids watch, pause for Q+A, the videos podshifter software for iTunesU ) how much worse is this continuation of using the bible koran instead of critical mass ecosystem dynamics physics logistics?

MIT OCW designing your life. The art of war flashcard deck, wikipedia article audio book the 48 laws of power... RAW stem cells movies: Eagle EYE, Minority Report, (gps and audio recording + all video survelance to DVR on web for all probation and parole ankle monitors, put more people on them and use software to monitor them, the probation or parolee pays for the ankle monitor and then gives it back to the probation office then the next probation pays for it again, thus buying another one) broadcom is makeing new version of these chips every two months now GPS + Bluetooth + WiFi + FM combo chip)audio + video security DVR in juvinile prisons with audiobooks streaming leave the headphones you buy behind for the next inmate

web 2.0 directories: ziipa.com and go2web20.net USE THE TAGS cloud, also lifehacker.com and lifehack.org SHARE 99ebooks.blogspot.com via http://www.care2.com/click2donate/ or http://www.thehungersite.com and http://gizmodo.com/tag/ecomodo/ click every tab every day with iMacro, smarterfox, colorful tabs, TOOMANYTABS, WebMynd extensions for the new firefox 3.5 browser.